Re: [sig-policy] prop-072: Reapplication limits whentransferringaddress
Thank you for your question.
My answer is "APNIC doesn't need to take any action except automatically rejecting
transfers which treating address space allocated within last 24 months.".
Please remember that my proposal is just "Allocated resource within 24 months is not eligible for transfer",
and I'm NOT requesting APNIC to recognize cheating nor report it.
Rgs,
Masato Yamanishi
Softbank BB Corp.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 8:18 AM
> To: 山西 正人(ネットワーク本部)
> Cc: terry at terrym dot net; sig-policy at apnic dot net
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-072: Reapplication limits
> whentransferringaddress space
>
> Masato sama, and all,
>
> My question is, what action will Apnic take specifically when
> cheeting is reported and recognized?
>
> myamanis at bb.softbank dot co dot jp wrote:
>
> > Dear Terry and all,
> >
> > > Although the observation is 'where there is a will, there
> is a way'
> > > applies and if some entity/person wishes to open and
> close companies
> > > and APNIC accounts for the sake of brokering fresh space
> from APNIC
> > > for transfers there is nothing you can do to stop it.
> >
> > I agree that there is no way which can completely prevent
> all cheating,
> > but also I think we should decrease its possibility and
> discourage it as much as possible.
> >
> > Regarding this proposal, while there is no "guard" for
> above problem in current revision,
> > my idea can at least decrease and discourage it.
> > So, I can't understand well why you are giving it up so quickly.
> >
> > Or, is there any hidden disadvantage which I have not yet
> aware for my idea?
> >
> > Rgs,
> > Masato Yamanishi
> > Softbank BB Corp.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net
> > > [mailto:sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of
> > > Terry Manderson
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 9:26 AM
> > > To: sig-policy at apnic dot net SIG
> > > Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-072: Reapplication limits when
> > > transferringaddress space
> > >
> > > I support this.
> > >
> > > Although the observation is 'where there is a will, there
> is a way'
> > > applies and if some entity/person wishes to open and
> close companies
> > > and APNIC accounts for the sake of brokering fresh space
> from APNIC
> > > for transfers there is nothing you can do to stop it.
> > >
> > > But in an effort to regulate the honest - I see no drama with this
> > > proposal.
> > >
> > > Terry
> > >
> > > On 10/03/2009, at 7:18 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear SIG members
> > > >
> > > > The policy proposal 'Reapplication limits when
> transferring address
> > > > space' has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be
> > > > presented
> > > > at the Policy SIG at APNIC 28 in Beijing, China, 24-28
> > > August 2009.
> > > > The
> > > > proposal's history can be found at:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-072-v001.html
> > > >
> > > > We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on
> the mailing
> > > > list before the meeting.
> > > >
> > > > The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC
> meeting is
> > > > an important part of the policy development process. We
> encourage
> > > > you to express your views on the proposal:
> > > >
> > > > - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
> > > > - Does this proposal solve a problem you are
> experiencing? If
> > > > so, tell the community about your situation.
> > > > - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
> > > > - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
> > > > - What changes could be made to this proposal to
> make it more
> > > > effective?
> > > >
> > > > Randy, Jian, and Ching-Heng
> > > >
> > > >
> > > ______________________________________________________________
> > > __________
> > > >
> > > > prop-072: Reapplication limits when transferring address space
> > > >
> > > ______________________________________________________________
> > > __________
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Author: Philip Smith
> > > > pfs at cisco dot com
> > > >
> > > > Version: 1
> > > >
> > > > Date: 10 March 2009
> > > >
> > > > 1. Introduction
> > > > ----------------
> > > >
> > > > This policy proposal seeks to supplement prop-050, "IPv4 address
> > > > transfers", by not permitting organisations who have
> > > transferred IPv4
> > > > address from obtaining more address space from APNIC for a
> > > period of
> > > > 24
> > > > months after the transfer.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2. Summary of current problem
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Prop-050, "IPv4 address transfers", as it stands at
> time of writing,
> > > > places no restriction on the organisation transferring
> IPv4 address
> > > > space to return to APNIC for additional IPv4 address space.
> > > >
> > > > This gives organisations the opportunity to transfer their IPv4
> > > > address
> > > > space to another organisation, and return to APNIC almost
> > > immediately
> > > > with a fully justified application for additional
> resources. This
> > > > means
> > > > that organisations could rapidly deplete the remaining IPv4
> > > pool, to
> > > > the
> > > > detriment of the entire industry during the IPv4 runout period.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 3. Situation in other RIRs
> > > > ---------------------------
> > > >
> > > > RIPE NCC
> > > >
> > > > The transfer policy adopted by RIPE only places no
> limits on any
> > > > organisation transferring address space to a third party
> > > from going
> > > > back to the RIPE NCC for further IPv4 address space. See:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html
> > > >
> > > > ARIN
> > > >
> > > > The transfer policy notes that transfers of address
> space between
> > > > organisations are only considered if the originating
> > > organisation
> > > > has
> > > > made a complete transfer of assets to the recipient (such as a
> > > > liquidation of the originating organisation). See:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_8.html
> > > >
> > > > LACNIC
> > > >
> > > > LACNIC is currently discussing a transfer proposal:
> > > >
> > > > LAC-2009-04 Transfer of IPv4 Blocks within the LACNIC Region
> > > >
> > > http://www.lacnic.net/documentos/politicas/LAC-2009-04-propues
> > > ta-en.pdf
> > > >
> > > > AfriNIC has no transfer policy.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 4. Details of the proposal
> > > > ---------------------------
> > > >
> > > > It is proposed that organisations disposing of their
> space using the
> > > > transfer policy described in prop-050, "IPv4 address
> > > transfers", are
> > > > not
> > > > eligible for APNIC IPv4 assignments and/or allocations for
> > > two years.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 5. Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
> > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > 5.1 Advantages
> > > >
> > > > - Organisations transferring address space to third
> > > parties can
> > > > not
> > > > go back to APNIC and request additional IPv4 address
> > > space for a
> > > > period of 24 months. This prevents organisations
> from making
> > > > frequent and repeated requests to APNIC, and then
> transferring
> > > > the address space elsewhere.
> > > >
> > > > 5.2 Disadvantages
> > > >
> > > > - None.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 6. Effect on APNIC Members
> > > > ---------------------------
> > > >
> > > > The proposal impacts all APNIC members in that they now
> > > cannot receive
> > > > more address space from the APNIC free pool for a full 24
> > > months after
> > > > they have made a transfer to another organisation.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 7. Effect on NIRs
> > > > ------------------
> > > >
> > > > The proposal has no direct impact on NIRs, but impacts
> > > members of NIRs
> > > > in the same way it impacts APNIC members.
> > > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management
> > > > policy *
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > sig-policy mailing list
> > > > sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> > > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
> > >
> > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management
> > > policy *
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > sig-policy mailing list
> > > sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
> > >
> > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource
> management policy *
> > _______________________________________________
> > sig-policy mailing list
> > sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
> Regards,
>
> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
> "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
> Abraham Lincoln
> "YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama
>
> "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
> very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
>
> "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
> liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
> P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
> United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
> ===============================================================
> Updated 1/26/04
> CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
> div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
> ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
> jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com
> My Phone: 214-244-4827
>
>
>
>